codecks-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'No auth needed,' which is useful context for access requirements. However, it doesn't describe other behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, or what 'compact' entails (e.g., if it's a summary vs. detailed view), leaving gaps for a tool with potential complexity in planning status.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is highly concise and front-loaded, using a single sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and key constraint ('No auth needed'). Every word adds value without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is minimal but covers the core purpose and auth aspect. However, for a tool named 'planning_status' in a context with many planning-related siblings, it lacks details on what 'compact' means, how it differs from other status tools, or what the output includes, leaving room for improvement in guiding the agent effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it avoids unnecessary details while being complete for this aspect.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('compact planning status'), specifying what information is retrieved (goal, phases, decisions, errors, token count). It distinguishes from siblings like 'planning_init' or 'planning_update' by focusing on status retrieval rather than initialization or modification, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all planning-related tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides minimal guidance with 'No auth needed,' indicating it's accessible without authentication. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use instructions, such as when to choose this over other planning tools (e.g., 'planning_measure') or general status tools (e.g., 'list_activity'), and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions beyond the auth note.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.